GranPrix wrote:In John Carroll's column the other day some commenter offered what I thought was a good solution (ha!) to this prickly urban situation; The reintroduction of a hundred-year old concept - a County Farm. We have the modern tools of zoning and land use law, and could capitalize on the prestige and dignity of the gated community. The first new community of Rev'ned, could probably be located just outside the bad noise contour of D.I.A.. It would have to be a sustainable project. It could be a green energy demonstration LEEDS double-plus A project - off-the grid completely. Water consumption would be almost nil. Being self-contained and inward oriented, the highway access would not be of concern. Average daily traffic to the project would be very low, consisting mainly of highly paid social workers and a few guilt-ridden locals. An architecturally sensitive hamlet located just inside the front gate could serve as the community meeting place. It could be a totally pedestrian oriented community. No cars needed. Actually, not that many houses would be needed. It may seem odd to have sidewalks, without streets, but that may be the sleeping place of choice by many residents. The preferences of the residents would come first. It would have to be a tax-free zone, and subsidized by the City and County of Denver, but I believe the numbers could be worked out. All it takes is a vision and a commitment by the concerned citizens of Denver.

I'm not sure whether this is a "modest proposal" (after Jonathan Swift) or a serious proposal, but something like it ought to be investigated. If Denver is investing 17.5 million dollars in a private charity that pays its executive well over a hundred thousand a year and primarily is concerned with placing the homeless in hotels on Colfax, I think there are better uses for the money, and something like a development on city-owned land in the DIA noise buffer could be a creative solution.

New ideas for field expedient, transportable, modular emergency housing such as the "Millenium Home" (http://www.millennium-home.com/), Monolithic Cabins (http://www.monolithic.com/stories/worke ... hic-cabins) and various other small dwellings could be tested with the Denver homeless community on this land. In fact, able-bodied homeless people could be offered modest-paying work preparing lots and paving paths for a community such as this. This would give them an alternative to panhandling and less savory ways of making a living that would build their self-esteem.

Since Denver owns all that land out there, why not investigate the idea of offering residents in such a community equity on small plots of land with the understanding that they would work a certain amount of time to help build the community and maintain the area to minimum standards of habitability and sanitation? It would not have to be a "giveaway" program, but one in which small plots of land are offered in exchange for productive work.

Perhaps FEMA might be interested in helping fund this project as a full-scale trial of ways to provide housing and human services to displaced persons in disaster areas. The idea would be to test how different ways of providing disaster housing and human services work with a real population. Alternatives for sanitation such as "non-olet" toilets which don't require massive amounts of water could be tested, as well as shared kitchen, shower and craft facilities. The academic community could benefit from studying social dynamics in such communities. The city would benefit from relocation of the homeless community to an area where they no longer would be defecating and urinating in the open and in other ways degrading the environment of Denver for other citizens.

I realize that there's an objection to "ghettoizing" these people, taking them away from the mainstream of society. That could be partly answered by placing an RTD bus stop at the settlement and subsidizing bus travel on RTD for the homeless so they can go to stores, clinics and community resource centers.

Alternatively, the eighteen million dollars now spent on purchasing hotel rooms for the homeless could go towards setting up a community center with a store where inexpensive food could be offered for sale by charitable organizations and an outreach clinic where Denver Health could offer health care for qualifying residents.

Denver is confronted with a chronic human emergency in the form of a homeless population. The city chooses not to treat the intrusion of the homeless into private and city property as a criminal offense, which calls for an alternative response. The current solution is probably not the best use of available funding. More creative responses can and should be considered which offer the homeless a place to live and proportionate responsibility for helping defray the cost of their housing - not "make work," but "make habitat."

Denver has a chance to lead the nation in creatively helping the homeless. Our homeless population could actually help society while they're being helped - by helping test new approaches to emergency field housing which cost less than current alternatives. I propose that Denver use some of the noise buffer land around DIA for an Displaced Persons Assistance Research Community.

The city should apply to FEMA and perhaps the US Department of Defense for grants and practical assistance in the form of hardware for common kitchen space and sanitation for this community while new kinds of kitchen and sanitation facilities are tested. We should investigate whether colleges and universities are interested in studying the effectiveness of new types of shelter and provision of human services for displaced people. Funding from charitable foundations could be solicited for research into how best to provide services for large numbers of displaced and homeless persons.

We have a chance to turn our homeless community from a liability to a resource. We should try to pursue it.

Not a single mention about one of the primary causes of homelessness....mental health issues that CAN NOT be resolved. Just point the finger and make it look like the people have a choice, some DO NOT. There are NO good services....NO FUNDING....get real DENVER. This was a free country....and now to be homeless WILL mean going to jail....when that money SHOULD be used for real service. Real services consist of mental health service that don't take months and months to receive, a shelter that isnt full all of the time...there are NO SERVICES! A truly sick and sad day.

erisianmonkey wrote:The whole "refusing to get help" is a canard. There just isn't enough help to go around. I have been lucky enough to get a spot in the first-come, first-served shelter system. If one does not get into the extremely limited number of shelter beds, they are out on the street. This law will do nothing but criminalize those who were in line but not one of the lucky ones. I will be out on the streets again Tuesday because I have run out of time at the shelter I am currently in. Most of the other shelters are unsafe for me-as are the streets-because of my transsexual history. I am currently disabled, a volunteer in the community, and have been doing my best to help others who are in the same boat I am to find safe shelter.

Another problem in the system is the absurd hoops. In the system one can either be "too homeless" to get help from a particular place, or "not homeless enough." Some places want you to have a current substance abuse problem to help. Some want you to have never had a substance abuse problem. Some want you to have been homeless for less than six months. Some want you to have been homeless for over a year. And the vast majority would prefer you to be a Christian of their particular stripe, or at least pay lip service while they proselytize with federal funds.

Next time you see someone sleeping on the street, don't just assume that person is "turning down help"-they've probably been turned away repeatedly.

One would think that a person in your precarious situation would exhibit a discernible modicum of genuine gratitude for the help you have received. Instead you complain bitterly against, and insult those who provide for you what you can't [or won't] provide for yourself. Apparently you haven't been homeless/helpless/hungry long enough to be grateful for the food/clothing/shelter/etc. others have provided for you. It's either that, or you've decided that being h/h/h is your chosen way of life and are displeased that those who provide for you don't/won't do it in the manner in which you believe your lifestyle should afford you.

Less you think I'm some cruel, uncaring, pampered/powdered fop pontificating from the lap of luxury into which he was born and therefore knows not from where he speaks, I've been homeless. And it wasn't for a day or two, or a month or two. For the year-and-a-half that I was homeless I lived that seemingly-endless, hard, ugly, dirty, quasi-feral physical/psychological existence and lived it at a time/place where, unlike Denver, there were little resources. Having been there, I know exactlywhat they are going through. Having been there, I can, and will, and do, overlook a lot of human frailties, but one thing that I will not overlook is ingratitude exhibited by those who are in the least position to do so. That would be you, and others on this Forum, who bite the very hands that feed them.

All you've accomplished by your audacious whining, seeing as how you've taken it upon yourself to speak for those who are homeless, is given people one more thing to assume the next time they see someone sleeping on the street. Thanks to you, and others of your ungrateful ilk, that one more assumption will be the person sleeping on the street shares an equally proportionate amount your vitriolic ingratitude. Thanks for nothing!

correct wrote:Another miserable excuse for journalism! A single sentence recounts just one of the criticisms levelled against CB12-0241, while pages are devoted to how inevitable and appropriate the DP supposes it to be. Has the DP ever treated any subject objectively? Does it have a writer left capable of journalism?

Hancock first pushed this garbage without even the pretense of providing the substantial increase in shelter space and other services necessary if Denver's homeless were to be moved off the streets, and faced with criticism that we don't have a fraction of even the beds required, still has made no proposal of how the City would provide the services supposed to be forced upon the homeless. You can't have it both ways -- if the ordinance is not intended to criminalize homeless people, we must provide shelter other than the jail. Since Denver does not even plan to provide that shelter or the other services they would need, the Mayor and the bill's sponsors on City Council are lying. At the risk of continuing to be ignored, another major problem with the Mayor's scheme is that the City's shelters are unsafe; it is fundamentally wrong to demand that the homeless go where they fear robbery or assault!

CB12-0241 shows the Mayor for the useless tool of business interests he is. He and DPD spew doubletalk about providing services which do not exist, which they will not fund, and which may make people less safe than they are on their own on people who do not want them, while hoping that citizens will ignore the gross disparity between the need for services and their availability (e.g. 4166 homeless but only 867 beds) until they get the thing passed, at which point the City can move homeless people into the jail (or drive them away first) with abandon. Shame on the City Council (in advance) for passing this abomination, especially sponsors Brooks, Brown, Nevitt, and Lehman! Because City officials are not elected at general elections, Denver's government is unrepresentative by design; most of the Council is beholden not to mere homeowners, but to the rich, and their professions of concern for homeless people ring very hollow.

Whatever reputation Denver may have had (to hear these worthies tell it) as being a caring City, the Mayor and his cronies on the Council are throwing it away. Advocates for the homeless should mount a national boycott of Denver, and drive tourists off the Mall and conventioneers from the Colorado Convention Center -- that would be fair payback for the fascist campaign to drive the homeless from sight. How Denver can resolve to repose even more discretion in a police department which continues to make false arrests and brutalize suspects even as we have to pay ever more to settle the lawsuits arising out of their misconduct and crimes is unfathomable except in the context of Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly". Passing CB12-0241 will establish the fact that Denver is populated by fools.

how come i don't see thousands of liberals lined up in denver to solve this problem? put your money and time where your mouth is and get to work, instead of telling other people what to do.

User wrote:how come i don't see thousands of liberals lined up in denver to solve this problem?

-- complacency and ignorance, the same reasons that conservatives are not lined up in their thousands to decry the misspending of taxpayers' money repairing damage the City itself did to the sod and irrigation system in Civic Center Park or the wasting of the City's budget for the homeless on lousy motels.

User wrote:put your money and time where your mouth is and get to work, instead of telling other people what to do.

You have problems with reading comprehension. The first step in making constructive criticism is to inform oneself -- I attended the first two meetings of City Council committees on CB12-0241 and the meeting of the Mayor's Coalition for the Homeless so as to become better informed as to what the City now does about homelessness and what it proposes to do. The time and effort I have so far expended has not made me expert, but what I have learned reeks of incompetence, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, and fraud.

Your reply is unresponsive (but thanks for helping to fill the page with my previous comment) and ridiculously perfunctory. You have neither knowledge nor interest in the subject, and evince no other motivation than a desire to fend off liberalism -- pathetic!

I was asked in a PM what my thoughts on what we, the homeless population of Denver need as an alternative to criminalizing us. I realize that shelter space will always be limited. As are subsidized and HUD housing options. But a safe space where we are allowed to be when we cannot get into the shelters is paramount. None of us want to camp on doorsteps or in alleys. But there are too many people and too few jobs, and too few resources for the disabled among our ever increasing numbers. A place where we could go-and honestly, as much as I hate the idea, a place for a tent city would be a better solution than trying to make everyone unfortunate enough to be homeless into a criminal. It would make us safer, as we could have a police patrol through the area that would be there to protect us rather than harass us. As a homeless woman I absolutely hate the idea that I have to be as worried about the cops as I am the drunks and creeps.

Seeing us as lazy, or drunks, or addicts, or what have you is simply doing what the ostrich has long been rumored to do-burying your head in the sand. Those of us on the streets and in the shelters can tell you, the reason the unemployment numbers have been going down isn't that more people are working, it's that their unemployment benefits have run out and they are no longer counted by the government.

We need jobs. I'm not talking selling newspapers on the street as a thinly disguised "licensed panhandler." I'm not talking about the near-slavery experience of day labor either. We need secure, stable jobs that pay a living wage and will allow us to afford housing.

I am not the only college graduate who is trying to get-and stay-off the street. The ranks of the homeless include everyone from that stereotypical drunk bum on the street, to single mothers who are unable to work because they can't afford day care, to the people who are too disabled to work- but not "disabled enough" to qualify for SSDI or SSI. We, the homeless Americans are straight, gay, transgender, cisgender, high-school dropouts, college graduates...and veterans. That has to disgust me the most. I know far too many men and women who have served our country proudly only to end up homeless.

Jobs and safe places. The two things that are most needed by the homeless population. The two things that criminalizing homelessness will never provide. Trying to claim this is to "drive us to services" is such a load of stuff that belongs on the stable floor I cannot bring myself to believe that those of you trotting out that line really believe it. The waiting time on subsidized housing options are a MINIMUM of 3-6 months-if you happen to qualify. The waiting time on mental health services is about a year at Stout St. Clinic, and 6 months or more at MHCD. Other services have lengthy waiting lists as well.

Since some of you are going to miss my point, I shall state it succinctly and clearly here: It is that the services are inadequate and the need too great, not that the homeless want to be homeless. (There are exceptions, I am sure. But that is what they are-exceptions, not the majority.)

@fax: Learn that words mean things. You obviously did not understand what I have said. And the services I have recieved I am grateful for and have thanked the providers thereof. You, I need not thank. I know this because you speak with the manner of one who has not got a stake in the provision of these services, or you would know that you cannot feed and house everyone with limited space. You and your ilk are the cancer that has eaten away the heart of our country: those who can only see what they wish. You believe that I should be grateful that you and your person heroes like Charlie Brown want to turn me into a criminal for merely existing? We are still trying to pull this country out of the greatest trouble it has been in since the 1930's-when, by the way, tent cities were all some people had to fall back on-and ignoring problems and demonizing victims does nothing to help. You claim to have been homeless yourself. Then you would know that what you have attempted to do is not only uncaring, but unintelligent as well. I should not justify your moronic vitriol with an answer, but some days kicking idiots can be a pleasure. I have been homeless in much worse situations than I am in now. Believe me, I know what I am stepping back into very soon. And let me tell you, watching someone else receive services that are denied you because of your religion is not a pleasant experience. I shall not allow myself to be tempted into saying the worst of what I think of you. I do believe that any further comments from you to me shall be headed directly to the bit bucket.

I'm trans, homeless, and unashamed. Got a problem with that? Tough, I'm a free woman in an ostensibly free country.

correct wrote:Another miserable excuse for journalism! A single sentence recounts just one of the criticisms levelled against CB12-0241, while pages are devoted to how inevitable and appropriate the DP supposes it to be. Has the DP ever treated any subject objectively? Does it have a writer left capable of journalism?

Hancock first pushed this garbage without even the pretense of providing the substantial increase in shelter space and other services necessary if Denver's homeless were to be moved off the streets, and faced with criticism that we don't have a fraction of even the beds required, still has made no proposal of how the City would provide the services supposed to be forced upon the homeless. You can't have it both ways -- if the ordinance is not intended to criminalize homeless people, we must provide shelter other than the jail. Since Denver does not even plan to provide that shelter or the other services they would need, the Mayor and the bill's sponsors on City Council are lying. At the risk of continuing to be ignored, another major problem with the Mayor's scheme is that the City's shelters are unsafe; it is fundamentally wrong to demand that the homeless go where they fear robbery or assault!

CB12-0241 shows the Mayor for the useless tool of business interests he is. He and DPD spew doubletalk about providing services which do not exist, which they will not fund, and which may make people less safe than they are on their own on people who do not want them, while hoping that citizens will ignore the gross disparity between the need for services and their availability (e.g. 4166 homeless but only 867 beds) until they get the thing passed, at which point the City can move homeless people into the jail (or drive them away first) with abandon. Shame on the City Council (in advance) for passing this abomination, especially sponsors Brooks, Brown, Nevitt, and Lehman! Because City officials are not elected at general elections, Denver's government is unrepresentative by design; most of the Council is beholden not to mere homeowners, but to the rich, and their professions of concern for homeless people ring very hollow.

Whatever reputation Denver may have had (to hear these worthies tell it) as being a caring City, the Mayor and his cronies on the Council are throwing it away. Advocates for the homeless should mount a national boycott of Denver, and drive tourists off the Mall and conventioneers from the Colorado Convention Center -- that would be fair payback for the fascist campaign to drive the homeless from sight. How Denver can resolve to repose even more discretion in a police department which continues to make false arrests and brutalize suspects even as we have to pay ever more to settle the lawsuits arising out of their misconduct and crimes is unfathomable except in the context of Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly". Passing CB12-0241 will establish the fact that Denver is populated by fools.

how come i don't see thousands of liberals lined up in denver to solve this problem? put your money and time where your mouth is and get to work, instead of telling other people what to do.

Because those "thousands of Liberals" complaining about the plight of the Homeless are the least willing to put their personal time, personal money, and personal resources into helping those for which they claim to Champion. They fancy themselves the "think'er-up'ers" and the rest of the population, the "get'er-done'ers".

Take a drive through some of the better known 'Liberal Enclaves' in the Metro Area. Liberals have $. Lots of $. Liberals have big houses. Very big houses..and properties. They could put a huge dent in, if not eradicate completely, the homeless situation within a weeks time if they would Sponsor a homeless individual, or family, take them into their personal homes, and provide for their new charges needs. But they won't do that. Why? Because they don't want the personal responsibility, nor possess in their character, the essence of what's required to render hands-on aide to those they claim to care about. The way they see it is, the rest of us are their 'brothers' keeper.

Last edited by fax on April 29th, 2012, 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User and fax cannot get past reacting to the fact that the City spends any money on the homeless and their determination to blame liberals for all the ills of the world. Too bad the two of you have no interest in the subject matter, no appreciation of the problem, no outrage at incompetence and the misspending of public funds, and no solutions -- so why are you here? Go find an article which mentions President Obama and deposit your digital diarrhea there!

erisianmonkey wrote:I was asked in a PM what my thoughts on what we, the homeless population of Denver need as an alternative to criminalizing us. I realize that shelter space will always be limited. As are subsidized and HUD housing options. But a safe space where we are allowed to be when we cannot get into the shelters is paramount. None of us want to camp on doorsteps or in alleys. But there are too many people and too few jobs, and too few resources for the disabled among our ever increasing numbers. A place where we could go-and honestly, as much as I hate the idea, a place for a tent city would be a better solution than trying to make everyone unfortunate enough to be homeless into a criminal. It would make us safer, as we could have a police patrol through the area that would be there to protect us rather than harass us. As a homeless woman I absolutely hate the idea that I have to be as worried about the cops as I am the drunks and creeps.

Seeing us as lazy, or drunks, or addicts, or what have you is simply doing what the ostrich has long been rumored to do-burying your head in the sand. Those of us on the streets and in the shelters can tell you, the reason the unemployment numbers have been going down isn't that more people are working, it's that their unemployment benefits have run out and they are no longer counted by the government.

We need jobs. I'm not talking selling newspapers on the street as a thinly disguised "licensed panhandler." I'm not talking about the near-slavery experience of day labor either. We need secure, stable jobs that pay a living wage and will allow us to afford housing.

I am not the only college graduate who is trying to get-and stay-off the street. The ranks of the homeless include everyone from that stereotypical drunk bum on the street, to single mothers who are unable to work because they can't afford day care, to the people who are too disabled to work- but not "disabled enough" to qualify for SSDI or SSI. We, the homeless Americans are straight, gay, transgender, cisgender, high-school dropouts, college graduates...and veterans. That has to disgust me the most. I know far too many men and women who have served our country proudly only to end up homeless.

Jobs and safe places. The two things that are most needed by the homeless population. The two things that criminalizing homelessness will never provide. Trying to claim this is to "drive us to services" is such a load of stuff that belongs on the stable floor I cannot bring myself to believe that those of you trotting out that line really believe it. The waiting time on subsidized housing options are a MINIMUM of 3-6 months-if you happen to qualify. The waiting time on mental health services is about a year at Stout St. Clinic, and 6 months or more at MHCD. Other services have lengthy waiting lists as well.

Since some of you are going to miss my point, I shall state it succinctly and clearly here: It is that the services are inadequate and the need too great, not that the homeless want to be homeless. (There are exceptions, I am sure. But that is what they are-exceptions, not the majority.)

@fax: Learn that words mean things. You obviously did not understand what I have said. And the services I have recieved I am grateful for and have thanked the providers thereof. You, I need not thank. I know this because you speak with the manner of one who has not got a stake in the provision of these services, or you would know that you cannot feed and house everyone with limited space. You and your ilk are the cancer that has eaten away the heart of our country: those who can only see what they wish. You believe that I should be grateful that you and your person heroes like Charlie Brown want to turn me into a criminal for merely existing? We are still trying to pull this country out of the greatest trouble it has been in since the 1930's-when, by the way, tent cities were all some people had to fall back on-and ignoring problems and demonizing victims does nothing to help. You claim to have been homeless yourself. Then you would know that what you have attempted to do is not only uncaring, but unintelligent as well. I should not justify your moronic vitriol with an answer, but some days kicking idiots can be a pleasure. I have been homeless in much worse situations than I am in now. Believe me, I know what I am stepping back into very soon. And let me tell you, watching someone else receive services that are denied you because of your religion is not a pleasant experience. I shall not allow myself to be tempted into saying the worst of what I think of you. I do believe that any further comments from you to me shall be headed directly to the bit bucket.

I understood exactly what you said. I also understand perfectly what you did. You sprinkled a bit of sugar on your dung pile of ingratitude and tried to pass it off as breakfast. You're coming to the wrong person for that to pass by unchallenged. Carry on.

User wrote:how come i don't see thousands of liberals lined up in denver to solve this problem?

-- complacency and ignorance, the same reasons that conservatives are not lined up in their thousands to decry the misspending of taxpayers' money repairing damage the City itself did to the sod and irrigation system in Civic Center Park or the wasting of the City's budget for the homeless on lousy motels.

User wrote:put your money and time where your mouth is and get to work, instead of telling other people what to do.

You have problems with reading comprehension. The first step in making constructive criticism is to inform oneself -- I attended the first two meetings of City Council committees on CB12-0241 and the meeting of the Mayor's Coalition for the Homeless so as to become better informed as to what the City now does about homelessness and what it proposes to do. The time and effort I have so far expended has not made me expert, but what I have learned reeks of incompetence, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, and fraud.

Your reply is unresponsive (but thanks for helping to fill the page with my previous comment) and ridiculously perfunctory. You have neither knowledge nor interest in the subject, and evince no other motivation than a desire to fend off liberalism -- pathetic!

no, what's pathetic is your call to boycott denver and drive tourists away as an answer to fix homelessness. of course my desire is to fend off liberalism, for too long we had the cycle of spending more money on issues which in turn was only made worse. that tells me only one thing; you guys don't have a clue, and your only answer is more spending of other people's money without a shred of accountability.

correct wrote:User and fax cannot get past reacting to the fact that the City spends any money on the homeless and their determination to blame liberals for all the ills of the world. Too bad the two of you have no interest in the subject matter, no appreciation of the problem, no outrage at incompetence and the misspending of public funds, and no solutions -- so why are you here? Go find an article which mentions President Obama and deposit your digital diarrhea there!

You're accusations are false. But then so is your genuine concern for the homeless. Actions speak louder than words, so get off the Forum and get busy tending to the homeless.

I do not propose a boycott of Denver's downtown because I think it is a solution to homelessness, but because the interests who are pushing CB12-0241 deserve no business in recognition of their efforts.

As I wrote before, I do not claim to have the solution for homelessness, but reversing course on divesting the City itself of the resources it needs to help the homeless in preference to paying private intermediaries to provide services would certainly be a start on getting taxpayers value for their money.

fax wrote:You're [sic] accusations are false. But then so is your genuine [sic] concern for the homeless. Actions speak louder than words, so get off the Forum and get busy tending to the homeless.

("false" and "genuine" are antonyms)

I erred in saying that you have no knowledge of the problem, but you sure don't seem to be interested in any institutional change which would help the homeless. I do not set myself up as a champion of the interests of the homeless, but I hope that informed advocacy can help. As I see it, we must clear away very many false assumptions before the City is capable of improving the way it deals with homelessness, and that is why my posts are so critical.

Last edited by correct on April 29th, 2012, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fax wrote:I understood exactly what you said. I also understand perfectly what you did. You sprinkled a bit of sugar on your dung pile of ingratitude and tried to pass it off as breakfast. You're coming to the wrong person for that to pass by unchallenged. Carry on.

*sigh* I shall try to put this in simple words, as I can see you aren't really up to critical thinking. Why should I be grateful to you? I can see why I should be grateful to the people and organizations that have and do provide help to me with what resources they have, but why should I kiss your butt? Just because you have a home and feel like telling me to? Gratitude does not mean only having the opinion someone else wants you to have. Get it? (probably not, but let's move on.)

Why should I be thankful someone wants to make me a criminal? Because they claim that it's so they can "help" me? I repeat, that's a canard, a decoy line meant to fool the idiots. Get it? (No? Tough, I'm a busy woman. Moving on.)

How would you know what I have and have not done in my life? Oh, that's right, you don't. I'm just a woman who is trying to get out of the shelter system and into decent housing and rehabilitated so that maybe I can give more back to my community. Get it? (again, I'm not sure it sunk in, but there's that limited time thing cropping up again.)

I am not a panhandler in the streets, I don't stand around unbathed with a big cardboard sign. You won't find me staggering around drunk or strung out and turning tricks. I am what could be called the "invisible homeless." I am a volunteer in the community, and I have helped people get services, I have saved lives, and I shall continue to do so to the best of my ability when I am on the streets. Is that ingratitude to my community?

You are not someone I need to be personally grateful to, nor do I have to kiss your butt to be a good contributing member of society. You should be embarrassed at how easy it was for me to emphasize just how truly stupid your comments have been. I had thought to put you on ignore, but your drivel is just dumb enough to be mildly amusing to dissect.

I'm trans, homeless, and unashamed. Got a problem with that? Tough, I'm a free woman in an ostensibly free country.

fax wrote:I understood exactly what you said. I also understand perfectly what you did. You sprinkled a bit of sugar on your dung pile of ingratitude and tried to pass it off as breakfast. You're coming to the wrong person for that to pass by unchallenged. Carry on.

*sigh* I shall try to put this in simple words, as I can see you aren't really up to critical thinking. Why should I be grateful to you? I can see why I should be grateful to the people and organizations that have and do provide help to me with what resources they have, but why should I kiss your butt? Just because you have a home and feel like telling me to? Gratitude does not mean only having the opinion someone else wants you to have. Get it? (probably not, but let's move on.)

Why should I be thankful someone wants to make me a criminal? Because they claim that it's so they can "help" me? I repeat, that's a canard, a decoy line meant to fool the idiots. Get it? (No? Tough, I'm a busy woman. Moving on.)

How would you know what I have and have not done in my life? Oh, that's right, you don't. I'm just a woman who is trying to get out of the shelter system and into decent housing and rehabilitated so that maybe I can give more back to my community. Get it? (again, I'm not sure it sunk in, but there's that limited time thing cropping up again.)

I am not a panhandler in the streets, I don't stand around unbathed with a big cardboard sign. You won't find me staggering around drunk or strung out and turning tricks. I am what could be called the "invisible homeless." I am a volunteer in the community, and I have helped people get services, I have saved lives, and I shall continue to do so to the best of my ability when I am on the streets. Is that ingratitude to my community?

You are not someone I need to be personally grateful to, nor do I have to kiss your butt to be a good contributing member of society. You should be embarrassed at how easy it was for me to emphasize just how truly stupid your comments have been. I had thought to put you on ignore, but your drivel is just dumb enough to be mildly amusing to dissect.

"Narcissa". You couldn't have been given [or chosen] a more perfect name. It is you. Here's hoping the rest of your life works out better for you than it has so far. Cheers.

I have refused to contribute to the tax base in Denver for probably about 15 years now. The Hickenlooper folly of trying to create housing for (?) is just one example of why I won't buy a thing in Denver. There is NO real solution from government when it comes to the homeless. I hope that Denver makes it difficult for people to "camp" where business and tourists are trying to do business; these people and businesses should be allowed to pursue their interests.

The suggestion that a "farm/compound" of some kind out by DIA is at least a suggestion, but who do you cut-off. I can see it now, many people that might otherwise be productive, would think it would be great to just go hang out there. Oh, thats right we already have a few million people livng off the sweat and hard work of others.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

How did I know this "special patrol" was taxpayer funded? Why is the city/activist media using a few bedraggled hippy protesters at Civic Center Park as an excuse to push the end homelessness agenda with taxpayer money?

Brian M wrote:The suggestion that a "farm/compound" of some kind out by DIA is at least a suggestion, but who do you cut-off. I can see it now, many people that might otherwise be productive, would think it would be great to just go hang out there. Oh, thats right we already have a few million people livng off the sweat and hard work of others.

If any kind of added help is to be given, I want it in the form of drug and alcohol treatment centers, not somewhere they can roost and get a free ride.

Please visit Century Aurora theater and help us put good vibes back into it. We are returning to take our theater back.

Fax said: (QUOTE)Because those "thousands of Liberals" complaining about the plight of the Homeless are the least willing to put their personal time, personal money, and personal resources into helping those for which they claim to Champion. They fancy themselves the "think'er-up'ers" and the rest of the population, the "get'er-done'ers".

Take a drive through some of the better known 'Liberal Enclaves' in the Metro Area. Liberals have $. Lots of $. Liberals have big houses. Very big houses..and properties. They could put a huge dent in, if not eradicate completely, the homeless situation within a weeks time if they would Sponsor a homeless individual, or family, take them into their personal homes, and provide for their new charges needs. But they won't do that. Why? Because they don't want the personal responsibility, nor possess in their character, the essence of what's required to render hands-on aide to those they claim to care about. The way they see it is, the rest of us are their 'brothers' keeper. (END QUOTE)

My reply:

How DARE you presume to lump all liberals into the same category?

I am a (mostly) liberal, and I volunteer for an organization that helps homeless families, working in the food bank and answering the crisis hotline. I also live in an apartment.

I am not saying this to pat myself on the back, BTW, but only to say that I am a liberal who puts my efforts where my mouth is, and I am far, very far, from being the only liberal who does so!

whoccares811 wrote:Fax said: (QUOTE)Because those "thousands of Liberals" complaining about the plight of the Homeless are the least willing to put their personal time, personal money, and personal resources into helping those for which they claim to Champion. They fancy themselves the "think'er-up'ers" and the rest of the population, the "get'er-done'ers".

Take a drive through some of the better known 'Liberal Enclaves' in the Metro Area. Liberals have $. Lots of $. Liberals have big houses. Very big houses..and properties. They could put a huge dent in, if not eradicate completely, the homeless situation within a weeks time if they would Sponsor a homeless individual, or family, take them into their personal homes, and provide for their new charges needs. But they won't do that. Why? Because they don't want the personal responsibility, nor possess in their character, the essence of what's required to render hands-on aide to those they claim to care about. The way they see it is, the rest of us are their 'brothers' keeper. (END QUOTE)

My reply:

How DARE you presume to lump all liberals into the same category?

I am a (mostly) liberal, and I volunteer for an organization that helps homeless families, working in the food bank and answering the crisis hotline. I also live in an apartment.

I am not saying this to pat myself on the back, BTW, but only to say that I am a liberal who puts my efforts where my mouth is, and I am far, very far, from being the only liberal who does so!

I "dare to lump all Liberals into the same category" because they all belong in the same category and you're no exception. The food you give away was paid for by somebody else, the phones you operate are being paid for by somebody else, and the Organisation you state you volunteer your time for is funded by somebody else's $. You got an apartment? Great. That's a h*ll of a lot more than any of the Homeless you give lip-service and a can of soup to has. Get rid of your cat and Sponsor/take in a Homeless person. There's room even if you're living in a Studio. Then you'll have done something concretely meaningful in rescuing a person from living on the street. You have no valid reason not to, only excuses. Until then, you're in the correct "category". Time for you Libs. to start 'walkin-the-walk' using your own shoes paid for by your own labours.